Date of Award
Master of Science
Cecil E. Carter Jr
Robert S. Dotson, R. Gordon Holleman
The major purpose of this study was to determine if rural and urban county leaders differed in their ratings of 31 potential community problem areas and if so, tell how.
A total of 4,157 mail surveys were conducted by Extension Agents in Tennessee. The 1979 Community Resource Development Survey was used to collect the data from county leaders. County leaders surveyed included: Rural Development Committee members, county government officials, homemakers club presidents, community club presidents, 4-H club presidents, service club presidents. County Extension Advisory Committee, ministers, merchants, bankers, school principals, and superintendents and newspaper editors.
Data were coded and punched on computer cards and computations were made by The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Computing Center. The Chi-Square Test was the method of statistical analysis used in this study. Chi-square values which achieved the .05 probability level were accepted as significant.
Major findings included the following:
1. Rural and urban county leaders belonging to the all leaders surveyed audience differed in their ratings of 25 of the 31 potential community problem areas. Urban county leaders rated the status of 24 of the potential community problem areas higher than did rural county leaders. Rural county leaders rated the status of one community problem area (garbage and trash disposal) higher than did urban county leaders.
2. Rural and urban county leaders belonging to Extension related audiences differed in their ratings of 22 of the 31 potential community problem areas. Urban county leaders rated the status of these 22 potential problem areas higher than did rural county leaders.
3. Rural and urban county leaders belonging to seven groups of county leaders differed significantly (significant differences in more than half of the seven groups of county leaders) in their ratings of only seven of the 31 potential community problem areas. Urban county leaders rated the status of these seven problem areas higher than did rural county leaders.
4. No significant differences were found between rural and urban county leaders (belonging to all three audiences) ratings of six of the 31 potential community problem areas. Problem areas in which no significant differences were found included: Local Agriculture, Public Health Facilities, Sewage Disposal, Transportation, Land Use Planning, Conservation of Soil, Water, Timber.
Amonett, David Kelly, "A comparison of community resource development problems as perceived by leaders in rural and urban counties in Tennessee. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1984.